Obama Hasn’t Called For ‘All-Out Gun Confiscation’

  
Via:  don-overton  •  one month ago  •  127 comments

Obama Hasn’t Called For ‘All-Out Gun Confiscation’
A headline circulating on partisan websites distorts former President Barack Obama’s tweet advocating stricter gun laws in the wake of the most recent mass shootings. False Stories Unlike the lies the right tells the truth is always out there

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Full Story
Former President Barack Obama posted a statement on Twitter advocating “tougher gun laws,” reducing the influence of online hate groups, and heightening tolerance following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

He also tweeted a link to piece published by Vox titled: “Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.”

The article criticizes candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination for offering weak platforms on gun control. It argues that much more radical steps need to be taken to curb gun violence in the country, making the case, primarily, that there should be a nationwide gun licensing program and that the number of guns available needs to be slashed.

It does suggest that confiscation, or a “mandatory buyback program,” is one option for cutting down the number of guns. But it never suggests an “all-out” confiscation. In fact, it gives so little attention to the idea that it doesn’t even address what a confiscation program would entail.

A headline published on several partisan websites, however, has twisted Obama’s endorsement of that article to make this claim: “Barack Obama Calls For All-Out Gun Confiscation.”

Most of the websites that made the claim cited this passage from the Vox story: “To change the status quo, Democrats should go big. They need to focus on the abundance of guns in the US and develop a suite of policies that directly tackle that issue, from licensing to confiscation to more aggressive bans of certain kinds of firearms (including, perhaps, all semiautomatic weapons or at least some types of handguns).”

But we don’t know which part of the story Obama was highlighting, and an Obama spokesman didn’t respond to our request for clarification on the former president’s tweet. In his statement on Twitter, Obama said this about gun laws:

Obama, Aug. 12: Every time this happens, we’re told that tougher gun laws won’t stop all murders; that they won’t stop every deranged individual from getting a weapon and shooting innocent people in public places. But the evidence shows that they can stop some killings. They can save some families from heartbreak. We are not helpless here. And until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.

When he was president, Obama never proposed gun confiscations of any kind. Rather, he called for closing background check loopholes and banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

He wasn’t able to pass any of that legislation, though, and instead signed a series of executive actions.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.

Sources
Obama, Barack (@BarackObama). Statement. Twitter. 5 Aug 2019.

Obama, Barack (@BarackObama). “Until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.” Twitter. 5 Aug 2019.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Don Overton
1  seeder  Don Overton    one month ago

13c3fcebca5741d9e02945f041753f39.jpg Guns coming in 7th place.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Don Overton @1    one month ago

You are right in that Obama never called for all out gun confiscation. He was not stupid enough to think that would fly. He was however in favor of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and implementing that in the U.S., which would have pretty much accomplished things in a roundabout way

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    one month ago
He was however in favor of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and implementing that in the U.S., which would have pretty much accomplished things in a roundabout way.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is about international arms TRADE. Please support your claim that Obama wanted to 'implement' anything like it in the US. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.2  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1    4 weeks ago

Quit trying to makeup your own facts

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2  squiggy  replied to  Don Overton @1    one month ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Don Overton @1    one month ago

One third of guns sold in the US are imported.  Democrats could have an immediate impact by banning importation of firearms.  Obama could have done that without Congress.  Banning importation of firearms is a matter of trade; an import ban wouldn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.  Foreign gun makers don't have Constitutional rights.

As usual, Democrats are engaged in another political hoax for the purpose of weakening the Constitution and dividing the country.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3    one month ago
Democrats could have an immediate impact by banning importation of firearms.

So much for free trade eh?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.1    one month ago
So much for free trade eh?

What is more important to Democrats; making the rich richer or gun control?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.2    one month ago

I would hope the concept of Capitalism which helps pays their wages.   For which free trade is a bedrock principle.

YMMV

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.3    one month ago
I would hope the concept of Capitalism which helps pays their wages.   For which free trade is a bedrock principle.

Free trade won't keep us free.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.4    one month ago
Free trade won't keep us free.

I don't think i inferred that it would.

Stopping gun imports isn't going to stop mass shootings.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.5    one month ago
Stopping gun imports isn't going to stop mass shootings.

I don't think I inferred that it would.

The point is that Obama and Democrats could have made a meaningful impact on guns in the United States by banning imports.  And that wouldn't have involved the 2nd amendment at all.

Democrats are all smoke and no candle.  Democrats are wickless.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.7  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.6    one month ago
The point is that Obama and Democrats could have made a meaningful impact on guns in the United States by banning imports.  And that wouldn't have involved the 2nd amendment at all.

I don't agree.   When there is a demand, in this country, someone will provide a supply.   I've seen your other threads on this and know how you feel about it but i just don't agree.

It doesn't matter where the guns are coming from.   If there is a demand, there will be a supply.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.3.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.7    one month ago
I don't agree.   When there is a demand, in this country, someone will provide a supply.   I've seen your other threads on this and know how you feel about it but i just don't agree.

But that demand has only been supplied by imports.  The United States has lost its ability to supply its own demand.

If a ban on imported firearms spurs domestic investment and expansion of manufacturing, wouldn't that be a good thing?

What's the down side for banning imported firearms?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.9  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.8    one month ago
But that demand has only been supplied by imports.  The United States has lost its ability to supply its own demand.

Not it's ability, its will.   When 200+ year old companies choose to shut down plants because of oppressive state laws, its pretty hard to keep manufacturing local.

If a ban on imported firearms spurs domestic investment and expansion of manufacturing, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Domestically, i suppose yes, it would be a good thing.  

What's the down side for banning imported firearms?

Restriction of free commerce is rarely a good thing in my book and should only be used in the most dire situations such as unfair trade practices being practiceded by our trading partners.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.10  It Is ME  replied to  Nerm_L @1.3.6    4 weeks ago
The point is that Obama and Democrats could have made a meaningful impact on guns in the United States by banning imports.

Soooo …. The Democrats coulda supported "Made in America" all this time, Without Trump, if they had just put their minds and Hearts into it ?

 
 
 
Don Overton
2  seeder  Don Overton    one month ago

1b1883b1f3eb7b46df43a3218b7e5086.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Don Overton
3  seeder  Don Overton    one month ago

trump_puti_call-it-treason_072816.jpg

 
 
 
Don Overton
4  seeder  Don Overton    one month ago

Treason_RepublicansCannotWinWithoutIt+(1

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Don Overton @4    one month ago

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    one month ago

Your graphic indicates a recent radical increase in mass shooting over a short time, but not a correspondingly radical increase in the number of guns. In fact, we know that gun ownership is declining over time. Logially, then, guns are not the problem.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    one month ago

Wouldn't that possibly point to the rhetoric spread by people, say,

like Trump ?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.2    one month ago

How do you mean?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.3    one month ago

Trump tweets, along with his little 'pep rallies' he seems to need to help with his obvious insecurities, often play on the insecurities of his base.

His base, are the main ones committing these mass shootings.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    one month ago

Your graphic indicates a recent radical increase in mass shooting over a short time, but not a correspondingly radical increase in the number of guns. In fact, we know that gun ownership is declining over time. Logially, then, guns are not the problem.

That's because we have ~65 million more guns than people. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    one month ago
Your graphic indicates a recent radical increase in mass shooting over a short time, but not a correspondingly radical increase in the number of guns. In fact, we know that gun ownership is declining over time. Logially, then, guns are not the problem.

There is NOTHING logical about claiming that guns are not the problem when the issue is mass shootings. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.6    one month ago

There’s nothing logical claiming legal gun owners are part of the problem.    In classic form for many, they would throw the baby out with the bath water as long as it’s not their bath water.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.8  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.7    one month ago
There’s nothing logical claiming legal gun owners are part of the problem.

You mean except for the fact that the vast majority of mass shooters are legal gun owners right? 

In classic form for many, they would throw the baby out with the bath water as long as it’s not their bath water.

Point? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.8    one month ago

No I mean that the vast majority of legal gun owners, by far, ARE NOT mass shooters or killers of  any  kind.

Clearly that distinction is lost on you.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.10  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @4.1.6    one month ago

Guns are inanimate objects and can't commit a mass shooting without a person wielding it.So it is the person using the gun that is  responsible for the mass shooting not a inanimate object. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @4.1.10    one month ago
Guns are inanimate objects and can't commit a mass shooting without a person wielding it.So it is the person using the gun that is  responsible for the mass shooting not a inanimate object. 

Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars. Cars are inanimate objects aren't they? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    one month ago
Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars.

If that were true, we wouldn't have many if any drunk drivers.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.12    one month ago
If that were true, we wouldn't have many if any drunk drivers.

Really Tex? You're presuming that all drunk drivers are repeat offenders. Why?  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.12    one month ago

So true.    

It’s illegal to drive a car drunk just like it’s illegal to murder someone with a gun 

One more dog that don’t hunt .....

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.14    one month ago
One more dog that don’t hunt .....

It's illegal to speed too. Point? 

Is your posit that laws are irrelevant because some will always violate them? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    one month ago

You stated that we deny drunk drivers access to cars.

Exactly how do we deny them access?

If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.

I didn't presume that all drunk drivers are repeat offenders because you didn't mention that they were repeat offenders.

Why are you presuming that I presumed anything at all?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.15    one month ago
Is your posit that laws are irrelevant because some will always violate them?

Where did you come up with that from?

No sane individual would do that.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.16    one month ago
Exactly how do we deny them access? If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.

On Earth 1, those convicted of DUI have been known to be required to have a breathalyzer on their vehicle. Drunk? Car don't move. Denied access...

Thousands of people drive under the influence every weekend. 

I didn't presume that all drunk drivers are repeat offenders because you didn't mention that they were repeat offenders.

Yet you insist that penalties effect perpetrators despite the FACT that evidence proves it doesn't. 

Why are you presuming that I presumed anything at all?

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.18    one month ago
On Earth 1, those convicted of DUI have been known to be required to have a breathalyzer on their vehicle. Drunk? Car don't move. Denied access...

Many states do not require breathalyzers for first offenders. Not denied access. And in your original statement, you stated absolutely nothing about people convicted of DUI.

Thousands of people drive under the influence every weekend.

True, which makes your statement all the more baffling--"Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars."

Yet you insist that penalties effect perpetrators despite the FACT that evidence proves it doesn't.

I did? Where? Quote me saying that.

My bad, I presumed you were thinking cogently.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.17    one month ago
Where did you come up with that from?

From Sparty's comment.

No sane individual would do that.

Well gee Tex, tell me what your interpretation of Sparty's comment is...

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.20    one month ago

Why bother? You wouldn't understand it, deliberately misinterpret it, and then we would have to talk about it.

Play by yourself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.18    one month ago
Yet you insist that penalties effect perpetrators despite the FACT that evidence proves it doesn't.

It is intellectually dishonest to say I stated something when I have NOT.

I realize that is a favorite ploy of some here--argue stuff you make up and claim the other person said.

I don't play that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.5    one month ago

That's not a new phenomenon.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.6    one month ago
when the issue is mass shootings. 

No, the issue was the increase in mass shootings. Try reading the graphic under discussion.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
4.1.25  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    one month ago
Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars. Cars are inanimate objects aren't they? 

No shit. They are denied access to cars after it is determined they can't follow the laws. 

Cars are not constitutionally protected.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.19    one month ago
Many states do not require breathalyzers for first offenders. Not denied access.

Oh so you admit that there ARE first offenders. 

I presume that since you state that 'Many states do not', you recognize that many DO. 

 And in your original statement, you stated absolutely nothing about people convicted of DUI.

How would you label someone a drunk driver if not for a DUI conviction Tex? 

True, which makes your statement all the more baffling--"Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars."

There you go ignoring the FACT that there are first offenders again. 

I did? Where? Quote me saying that.

You stated: If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.27  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @4.1.25    one month ago
No shit. They are denied access to cars after it is determined they can't follow the laws. Cars are not constitutionally protected.

We deny access to guns for those that can't follow the laws too KD. Even Scalia said it was Constitutional to do so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.26    one month ago
Oh so you admit that there ARE first offenders.

I never denied it. What are you on about NOW?

How would you label someone a drunk driver if not for a DUI conviction Tex?

No need for your obtuseness. If you see someone kill someone, does that mean that you didn't witness a murder because the person hasn't been convicted yet? SMH

There you go ignoring the FACT that there are first offenders again.

The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring what I actually wrote and attempting to put words in my mouth.

You stated: If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.

That may be true IF you had EVERY car with a breathalyzer. Not a thing ion the world stopping someone from driving a friend's car drunk, or buying a new one.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.26    one month ago
I presume that since you state that 'Many states do not', you recognize that many DO.

https://www.selectsr22insurance.com/which-states-require-a-breathalyzer-after-first...

Apr 09, 2019 · While some States have mandated that all offenders will be subject to this condition, fourteen States have more clearly articulated that the enforcement of this restriction is only applicable to offenders who have registered a high blood alcohol count at the time of their initial offense

I stated "MANY" because MANY do not.

See how that works now?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.30  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.24    one month ago
No, the issue was the increase in mass shootings. Try reading the graphic under discussion.

I did and I read your comment:

Your graphic indicates a recent radical increase in mass shooting over a short time, but not a correspondingly radical increase in the number of guns. In fact, we know that gun ownership is declining over time. Logially, then, guns are not the problem.

How about you explain WHY an increase in the number of guns is required to prove a correlation of guns to an INCREASE in mass shootings?

What do you think happened all of those guns that were sold during the boom years when 2A fanatics insisted that Obama was going to take their guns? Gun sales only started to decline post Trump. 

There are about 8 million [3%] 'hardcore super owners' that own about half of the guns in the US. HOW MANY gun owners there are in the US doesn't correlate with HOW MANY guns there are in the US. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.28    one month ago
No need for your obtuseness.

How is my question obtuse Tex?  

If you see someone kill someone, does that mean that you didn't witness a murder because the person hasn't been convicted yet?

No. Yet there is a presumption of innocence and that person wouldn't be labeled a murderer until they were convicted. 

SMH

Perhaps that is having an adverse effect. 

The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring what I actually wrote and attempting to put words in my mouth.

Bullshit. I read what you wrote and replied factually. I didn't infer that you SAID a fucking thing. 

Someone said: 

It is intellectually dishonest to say I stated something when I have NOT.

Oh ya, that was YOU. 

That may be true IF you had EVERY car with a breathalyzer. Not a thing ion the world stopping someone from driving a friend's car drunk, or buying a new one.

Actually, driving a vehicle with a court ordered IID is a requirement for a reinstatement of a drivers license. An exception can be sought through the court [usually for work purposes] but otherwise, it's illegal for you to drive a friend's car or to avoid a IID by buying a new car. 

FAIL. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.31    one month ago

And on ignore ya go!

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.34  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.8    one month ago

You know damn well what the point is.    You’re the one who brought drunk driving into this.   It’s no more “legal” to drive drunk than it is to kill someone with a gun.

And yet, you apparently feel it’s okay to own the type of gun that accounts for more deaths in the US, and it’s not even close, than all AR type weapons combined.

Hypocrisy at its worst.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.35  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @4.1.11    one month ago

You made my point thank you.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.36  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.30    one month ago
How about you explain WHY an increase in the number of guns is required to prove a correlation of guns to an INCREASE in mass shootings?

The claim usually made is that we have so many shootings because we have so many guns. The graphic points out that the frequency of mass shootings has tripled since 2011. However, the number of guns has not tripled since 2011. Therefore the frequency of mass shootings is not dependent on the number of guns. There must be something else going on.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.29    one month ago
I stated "MANY" because MANY do not. See how that works now?

Yes, that's what I said. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.37    one month ago

If only 14 states require breathalyzers for first offenses, then the other 36 do NOT.

My statement stands correctly--MANY states do NOT.

If you think 14 states is many out of 50, so be it, but that is piss-poor math!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.34    one month ago
It’s no more “legal” to drive drunk than it is to kill someone with a gun.

A first time DUI is a misdemeanor in most states.

I'm pretty fucking sure that killing someone for the first time with a gun is a felony in EVERY state. Based on the charge and penalty, that makes it MUCH MORE illegal. 

And yet, you apparently feel it’s okay to own the type of gun that accounts for more deaths in the US, and it’s not even close, than all AR type weapons combined.

The topic isn't gun deaths, it's mass shootings or the INCREASE in mass shootings. 

Hypocrisy at its worst.

Bullshit.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.40  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @4.1.35    one month ago

You had a point? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.38    one month ago

Did you forget the ignore list thingy? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.41    one month ago

Not at all. 

Just a little bored and needed a laugh or two, so I read your post!

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.39    one month ago

A first time DUI is a misdemeanor in most states. I'm pretty fucking sure that killing someone for the first time with a gun is a felony in EVERY state. Based on the charge and penalty, that makes it MUCH MORE illegal.

Man you are slipping.    That wasn't even a nice try.

We weren't talking DUI's, at least i wasn't.   We were talking killing.   Now a DUI may lead to a death but then it wouldn't be a misdemeanor in ANY state now would it?    Killing someone drunk driving is just as illegal as killing someone with a gun.    No matter how hard you try to rationalize it away. 


The topic isn't gun deaths, it's mass shootings or the INCREASE in mass shootings.

The topic isn't drunk driving and yet you felt that was cogent to the conversation.   Hypocrisy pervades one of your comments once again.

Bullshit.

Nah, its spot on but honestly, no one expects you to admit it.   We know we'll get SOSDD from you.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.44  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    one month ago
Logically, then, guns are not the problem.

Since when was "logic" allowed in a liberal gun control conversation?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
4.1.45  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.3    one month ago
How do you mean?

Well....duh....

Trump is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in the entire history of bad things happening, from the eruption of Vesuvius to the fall of Rome to slavery to the Black Death.

Donald Trump literally invented cancer.

Had it not been for Trump, those poor boys in the Light Brigade would be alive today.  Half-a-league, half-a-league, half-a-league onward......

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.46  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.42    one month ago
Not at all.  Just a little bored and needed a laugh or two, so I read your post!

So you were so bored that you took me off ignore? That doesn't bode well for the entertainment value of the other members here...

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.47  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.43    one month ago
Man you are slipping. That wasn't even a nice try.
We weren't talking DUI's, at least i wasn't. We were talking killing. Now a DUI may lead to a death but then it wouldn't be a misdemeanor in ANY state now would it? Killing someone drunk driving is just as illegal as killing someone with a gun. No matter how hard you try to rationalize it away. 

Actually, YOU were talking about drunk driving. 

It’s no more “legal” to drive drunk than it is to kill someone with a gun.

That was you right Sparty? 

The topic isn't drunk driving and yet you felt that was cogent to the conversation.

You've mentioned drunk driving in multiple posts Sparty, though whether it was cogently is arguable. 

Hypocrisy pervades one of your comments once again.

How so Sparty? What was hypocritic about my comment? Please be specific. 

Nah, its spot on but honestly, no one expects you to admit it.

You seem to have an issue understanding the definition of hypocrisy. Again, what was hypocritical about my comment Sparty? Please be specific. 

We know we'll get SOSDD from you.

Who are these 'we' you pretend to speak for? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.48  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.47    one month ago

Discussions with you usually end in the same place .... nowhere.   When people here disagree with you.   You deny, you deflect, you try to redirect and then you report.   There's no point to it and I don't feel like getting into another useless debate with you today.

So, that said and like usual, i stand by all my comments here.   Especially those that pertain to yours.

100%

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.46    one month ago
That doesn't bode well for the entertainment value of the other members here...

Buck up, man, and never sell the comedic value of your own posts so short!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.50  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.48    one month ago
Discussions with you usually end in the same place

Yes, with you failing to support your comments and bailing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.51  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.49    one month ago
Buck up, man, and never sell the comedic value of your own posts so short!

If only yours had equal value.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @4.1.50    one month ago

If that helps you sleep at night, by all means, keep believing that.

Still standing by everything i said.

But no worries.   If something changes, i'll make sure you're the first to know.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.53  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.21    4 weeks ago

In other worlds you have no logical response

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @4.1.53    4 weeks ago

It isn't my job to understand things for you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.1.51    4 weeks ago

Your personal inability to recognize value is of no concern to me.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.56  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.55    3 weeks ago

Hilarious, you just contradicted yourself. 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2  bugsy  replied to  Don Overton @4    one month ago

Where do you get this stupid shit?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @4.2    one month ago

I believe you have to be on some DNC mailing list or some other such nonsense.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2.2  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    one month ago
some DNC mailing list

If I got some coo coo stuff like that in my mailbox, it would go to where the credit card offers go, straight to the recycle bin. Won't even darken my front door.

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.2.3  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  bugsy @4.2    4 weeks ago

Quit following the toilet paper roll as you information and you would know

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.2.4  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

You get the same facts from your sources try it someday Tex

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @4.2.4    4 weeks ago
You get the same facts from your sources try it someday Tex

Thank you so very, very much for your usual witty reply.

/s

 
 
 
Don Overton
5  seeder  Don Overton    one month ago

pence-just-as-guilty.jpg

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Don Overton @5    one month ago

Who supposedly vetted Trump's first Russian casualty, the 3 star general ? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6  XDm9mm    one month ago

And DIRECTLY from the linked article:

It does suggest that confiscation, or a “mandatory buyback program,” is one option for cutting down the number of guns.

It would appear that regardless of the verbiage used, "confiscation" or "mandatory buyback program", the end result would be the same.  The disarming of American citizens allowing only the government and of course the criminals to have guns.  (Although sometimes, the government and criminals are in fact one and the same.) 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @6    one month ago

390 million guns in the hands of citizens, in a country that only has 325 million people. How many guns in YOUR opinion will be needed to keep us safe....with one mass shooting after another? Just asking because clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago
390 million guns in the hands of citizens, in a country that only has 325 million people. How many guns in YOUR opinion will be needed to keep us safe....with one mass shooting after another?

As many as necessary.  When you get the lowlife scumbag thugs of society to stop being lowlife scumbag thugs and adhering to the laws of society, and can guarantee a response to my need for help against a lowlife scumbag thug as quickly as I can respond with my concealed handgun, then I'll consider disarming.

Just asking because clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns. 

So, to stop criminals, you want to further infringe on the rights of 99.9995% of people that legally own guns and abide by the law?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago
Just asking because clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns.

More people equals more crime.

More drugs equals more addicts.

More cars means more accidents.

Should we apply your rather dubious "logic" to everything?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago
390 million guns in the hands of citizens, in a country that only has 325 million people. How many guns in YOUR opinion will be needed to keep us safe....with one mass shooting after another? Just asking because clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns. 

Well, if people are serious about gun control then they should restrict firearm imports into the United States.  Seems like higher tariffs or embargoes would be a great idea.  Globalized free trade is turning the United States into an open range.

Number of imported firearms into the U.S. in 2017, by country

Free trade really does kill people.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago
390 million guns in the hands of citizens, in a country that only has 325 million people. How many guns in YOUR opinion will be needed to keep us safe....with one mass shooting after another? Just asking because clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns. 

Democrats are so worried about Russian intrusion threatening their political gravy train.  Why aren't Democrats worried about foreign intrusion threatening the rest of us?

How Foreign Guns Invaded the U.S.

Democrats should pull their heads out of banker's behinds and look around.  

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.5  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @6.1    one month ago

clearly more guns means more crimes committed with guns. 

Clearly more useless gun laws won't make a bit of difference.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
6.1.6  SteevieGee  replied to  WallyW @6.1.5    one month ago

Why bother when nothing works for anything right?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  SteevieGee @6.1.6    one month ago
Why bother when nothing works for anything right?

And when you can't provide a logical answer, you have the ever present 'why bother' of 'why have any laws' retort.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    one month ago
As many as necessary. 

We already have more guns that people, gun violence continues to rise. 2,100 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, 2,400+ dead. innocent people. But you would gladly defend buying the latest and greatest of weapons so you can brag to your buddies... Tell me, how many more need to do so you can have your little toys? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    one month ago
So, to stop criminals, you want to further infringe on the rights of 99.9995% of people that legally own guns and abide by the law?  

So, you are willing to climb over the piles of dead innocent Americans so you can your toys? Betting that if one of yours was mowed down because they decided to grab something at Wal-Mart, you would be a lot less willing to support the free and unrestricted access to any and all guns, no matter what. Of course you'll deny it, go ahead. 

We are using 232 year old laws to govern weapons that can shoot 100 rounds a minute. What was the max fire rate back then? 1? MAYBE 2 a minute? 

Laws need to change with the times. Just the way it is. I promise you this, had the founding fathers seen that the USA is essentially a massive gun range with mass shootings literally every fucking day, they would have written the 2nd amendment MUCH differently. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    one month ago
More people equals more crime.

No shit. 

More drugs equals more addicts.

Have you been assaulted with a pill bottle? Poor thing. 

More cars means more accidents.

Which are involved in more accidents? Full auto or semi-auto cars? 

Should we apply your rather dubious "logic" to everything?

Sure, there would be a lot less people being shot, that's for sure. 

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.11  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.9    one month ago

I support the right to buy firearms regardless of sanctimony or self righteousness of the people that oppose 2nd amendment.    

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.12  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.9    one month ago

They had duals at the time the constitution was written for fucks sake. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
6.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.8    one month ago

I don't know how many guns XD has, I would imagine it's greater than one and less than the number possessed by an Army Regiment. So with his number of guns, can you tell me if he has committed any gun crimes?  If yes why has he not been prosecuted for them?  If no, then why are you willing to punish him for something that he has not done?

Seems to me the number of guns is meaningless unless you are talking about banning and confiscating ALL guns in the entire country. It's kind of like the problem with drowning while in a swimming pool. Now if we were to ban and fill in all swimming pools in the country we could stop all pool related drowning deaths. Wouldn't do anything for drowning deaths in lakes or rivers or bathtubs or even buckets, but hell, it sure solves the pool related drowning.

Wouldn't it make more sense to try to make the current laws more effective before attempting to pass more laws that don't get enforced?  Very few states and agencies get their information back to the NICS system currently so while all sales thru a licensed gun dealer must go thru that background check the check is only as good as the data that is in the system. Propose enhancements to that and work to improve current laws rather than punish innocent people and we might find common ground to improve the situation.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.14  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    one month ago
As many as necessary.  When you get the lowlife scumbag thugs of society to stop being lowlife scumbag thugs and adhering to the laws of society, and can guarantee a response to my need for help against a lowlife scumbag thug as quickly as I can respond with my concealed handgun, then I'll consider disarming.

So in that scenario, your answer is ONE FIREARM, unless of course you're claiming that you need multiple concealed handguns. 

So, to stop criminals, you want to further infringe on the rights of 99.9995% of people that legally own guns and abide by the law?

Until they don't. Denying specific kinds of firearms does not infringe on the rights of the vast majority of people that legally own guns because they don't own those types of guns and don't want to. 

As your own scenario proves, an AR or AK are not necessary for self protection. My XD 9mm [yes, I own one] works just fine for a carry weapon and my shotgun as a go to home defense weapon. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.10    one month ago
Have you been assaulted with a pill bottle?

Why, no, no I haven't.

What an inane question!

Which are involved in more accidents? Full auto or semi-auto cars?

Don't you know? What did your source that told you about Fox being banned in the UK tell you it was?

Sure, there would be a lot less people being shot, that's for sure.

Source for that?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.16  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @6.1.12    one month ago
They had duals at the time the constitution was written for fucks sake. 

WTF is your point?

Duals with single shot pistols vs AR 15s with 100 round mags?

Talk about a false equivalency!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.9    one month ago
So, you are willing to climb over the piles of dead innocent Americans so you can your toys?

As you equate guns with toys, I sure hope you lie when you claim to own guns.  You most certainly are not the type of person that should own one.

I promise you this, had the founding fathers seen that the USA is essentially a massive gun range with mass shootings literally every fucking day, they would have written the 2nd amendment MUCH differently. 

You personally know that how exactly?  Come back when you want to have an intelligent rational adult conversation.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.18  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @6.1.14    one month ago
So in that scenario, your answer is ONE FIREARM, unless of course you're claiming that you need multiple concealed handguns. 

Actually, I do carry two.  So much for that theory.

Denying specific kinds of firearms does not infringe on the rights of the vast majority of people that legally own guns because they don't own those types of guns and don't want to. 

What "types of guns" are you specifically referring to?  Please be very specific and provide the reason for your belief.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.19  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.17    one month ago
s you equate guns with toys, I sure hope you lie when you claim to own guns.  You most certainly are not the type of person that should own one.

It's my 2nd Amendment right. And no, not lying. 

You personally know that how exactly? 

Because they weren't lunatics. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.20  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.9    one month ago
I promise you this, had the founding fathers seen that the USA is essentially a massive gun range with mass shootings literally every fucking day, they would have written the 2nd amendment MUCH differently. 

Thing is they DID foresee such things happening , that's why they included means to change the constitution if it could pass the required number of states to ratify an amendment to change what they wrote .

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.20    one month ago

Some don't let logic and facts interfere with a good rant.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.19    one month ago
s you equate guns with toys, I sure hope you lie when you claim to own guns.  You most certainly are not the type of person that should own one.
It's my 2nd Amendment right. And no, not lying. 

I applaud your desire to take advantage of your Constitutional rights, however, as you equate guns with toys, I will suggest that, at least in your situation, you should not own guns.  An alternative to that is having them under the control of a responsible adult that realizes guns are not toys.

You personally know that how exactly? 
Because they weren't lunatics. 

You do know that they had just won a war against the most formidable military force on the face of the earth at the time.   They wanted Americans armed to do the same again if the need ever arose.   Yes, they were not lunatics.  They simply wanted to ensure Americans of the future had the same ability  as they did.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.23  seeder  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    4 weeks ago
What are the symptoms of paranoia?
What are the symptoms of paranoid personality disorder?
  • believing that others have hidden motives or are out to harm them.
  • doubting the loyalty of others.
  • being hypersensitive to criticism.
  • having trouble working with others.
  • being quick to become angry and hostile.
  • becoming detached or socially isolated.

Do you need help

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.23    4 weeks ago
What are the symptoms of paranoia?
What are the symptoms of paranoid personality disorder?
  • believing that others have hidden motives or are out to harm them.
  • doubting the loyalty of others.
  • being hypersensitive to criticism.
  • having trouble working with others.
  • being quick to become angry and hostile.
  • becoming detached or socially isolated.

Do you need help

Why would I need help?  I'm prepared for the hopefully never to happen again event where I NEED a gun.  If you don't appreciate preparedness, throw out your spare tire and jack, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and any of the other items you keep to help in a situation you hoped would not happen.

So, are you going to do all of the above?  Or do you consider yourself to be paranoid?  

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.25  dennis smith  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.17    4 weeks ago

When someone begins by saying or writing " I promise you" or "Trust me" you need read no further to know it will not be truthful.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @6.1.23    4 weeks ago

Describes some others here but not XD from what i've seen.   Which begs the question:

Do you need help Don?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    one month ago
It does suggest that confiscation, or a “mandatory buyback program,” is one option for cutting down the number of guns. But it never suggests an “all-out” confiscation.

I'm prepared to have an open mind about the claim that this isn't a call for all-out confiscation, but you're going to have explain the difference between confiscation and mandatory buyback. If you're only distinction is that I'm financially compensated for my loss, sorry, but that's still confiscation. You're still taking my property.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8  Sparty On    one month ago

The thing that gets me about this is the zealous nature of this “gun control” narrative.    Meanwhile drug overdose continue to set records in the  US and have been growing on an exponential pace in comparison to gun deaths.    Especially when considering nearly 2/3rds of all gun deaths are by choice as suicides.    

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html

Where are all the crusaders for drug control?

I, like many law abiding gun owners, am all in for truly common sense and effective gun control.    I just don’t trust the zealots who are trying to control the narrative to use anything resembling “common sense” when they offer their ideas up.

One look at this thread is all one needs to do to see that.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Sparty On @8    one month ago
Where are all the crusaders for drug control?

That would impact too many of their own constituents, so of course that's off limits.

I'm also an ardent supporter of gun control.  Hitting what and only what the target is.  

As to "common sense" gun laws, there are two points the anti-gun zealots neglect to consider.

1 - Criminals, by their very nature do not care about adhering to any law.  Ergo why they are called criminals in the first place.

2 - There are already thousands of "common sense" gun laws on the books that are not enforced.  Why not give ENFORCEMENT a chance before enacting yet more laws to be ignored by both the criminal and 'law enforcement'.

 
 
 
flameaway
9  flameaway    4 weeks ago

Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun.  You might want a gun, you might like guns, you may not feel safe without one, 

But you don't need one.

Personally the reason I don't get too upset about gun control, is that gun owners are way more likely to kill themselves or a family member than they are to use it to attack someone else.

It's like if all US politicians got suicidal when they saw red... So you send them Santa suits.

So send the violent wankers all the guns they want, and a summary of their life stories.

No more gun control problem

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  flameaway @9    4 weeks ago
Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun.

True but entirely beside the point.   Entirely.

Personally the reason I don't get too upset about gun control, is that gun owners are way more likely to kill themselves or a family member than they are to use it to attack someone else.

So true again and exactly why we don't need more gun control.    The majority of gun owners are legal gun owners and aren't part of the crime problem related to guns.   Thanks for pointing that out.

No more gun control problem

What problem?   Since as you say they are more likely to kill themselves and theirs, the problem should take care of itself according to your logic.   Considering there are allegedly hundreds of millions of guns in the US, allegedly owned by only millions, it shouldn't take long.   Right?

 
 
 
flameaway
9.1.1  flameaway  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    4 weeks ago

Do you realize that you are agreeing with me like you disagree with me. I'm not for gun control it's just about as stupid as guns.

Anyone with knowledge and access to the right kind of equipment can simply make a gun... and the bullets.

You can't control knowledge.

Doesn't change the fact that it's pretty foolish to own a gun... or a nuke.

Have you heard of Ephemeralization.  This scientist name Buckminster Fuller figured it out.

What it means is that as tech advances it become easier and easier to make tech... all kinds of tech.

Including weapons of mass destruction.

A printed gun is a good example of this.

So the reason I think guns are dumb is because we are getting to the point were anyone with a mad on will be able to make or get their hands on extremely powerful weapons of mass destruction.

Lots of fissile material in space.  And that is where we are headed if we survive.  Lots of other types of weapons that don't need special material that are becoming easier and easier to manufacture.

Like germs.  One dude with the right equipment now can do some serious biological damage.  Might not be able to design a super bug from scratch yet.  But no need, someone has already done that work.

The point being that we are gonna have to figure out our violence problem before we get to that point. Or high school shooters might be able to kill entire cities.

Weapons are not a good idea at this point in our history

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  flameaway @9.1.1    4 weeks ago

Nah, i clearly disagree with you on multiple levels.  

The largest being your "need" comment.   Americans don't "need" a lot of things and yet we have the freedom to own them if we so choose.   Guns are one of those things.   One of the few that just happens to be mentioned rather prolifically in a little document called the Bill of Rights.   Now i know a lot of folks from other countries, and even some within the US, try to hack away at this rather unique document every chance they get but alas, to no avail.   And rightly so.

Perhaps there is a modicum of agreement there as my comments have clearly pointed out.   But make no mistake, in the scheme of things, any agreement is very minute.   That and your understanding of legal gun ownership in the US appears to be very sophomoric in nature.   By and large most guns in the US are owned legally and will never be used illegally in any way.   And yet, you apparently support throwing that baby out with the bathwater.    Not very informed i must say ..... 

 
 
 
flameaway
9.1.3  flameaway  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.2    3 weeks ago

Then you probably should have said that in the comment you were agreeing with me on.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  flameaway @9.1.3    3 weeks ago

I did .... reading comprehension is your friend Dan.

 
 
 
flameaway
9.1.5  flameaway  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.4    3 weeks ago
"Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun.

True but entirely beside the point.   Entirely.

Personally the reason I don't get too upset about gun control, is that gun owners are way more likely to kill themselves or a family member than they are to use it to attack someone else.

So true again and exactly why we don't need more gun control.    The majority of gun owners are legal gun owners and aren't part of the crime problem related to guns.   Thanks for pointing that out.

No more gun control problem

What problem?   Since as you say they are more likely to kill themselves and theirs, the problem should take care of itself according to your logic.   Considering there are allegedly hundreds of millions of guns in the US, allegedly owned by only millions, it shouldn't take long.   Right?"

Here is the relevant comment from you.  Would you mind pointing out the part where you are disagreeing with me?

I'm not the smartest guy in the world so sometimes I can miss things.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  flameaway @9.1.1    3 weeks ago
The point being that we are gonna have to figure out our violence problem

Exactly.  It's a violence problem.

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  flameaway @9.1.5    3 weeks ago

Okay, i can't tell if you are being serious of not but lets see if i can help you out regardless.  

You sed: Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun

To which i sed: True but entirely beside the point.   Entirely.

The point being that it is not always true that one would NEED a gun but one is free to own one if they so CHOOSE.   One might NEED a gun for self protection, for their job or to hunt with but one doesn't NEED a gun for example to simply enjoy shooting one.   That is a choice they are still FREE to make in the USA.   You don't NEED a 16 pound bowling ball but you are free to buy one if you so CHOOSE.   You don't NEED a car with 500 horsepower and yet you can still CHOOSE to buy one.   You don't NEED that second or twelfth drink but you still might CHOOSE to order them.   You don't need multiple bathrooms in your house but you may CHOOSE to build them.   Etc, etc

Freedom of choice ..... what a concept eh?

 
 
 
flameaway
10  flameaway    4 weeks ago

You agreed with me twice in your first comment to me.  And asked me a question.

Maybe I'm confused by the definition of agreement.

So, I don't regard the Constitution as that credible a document. I guess you do.  We'd have to talk about that first before we can get very much further.  Because you are going to keep referring to something I put on about the same level as Harry Potter.

So, if I don't think much of the Constitution and it is the foundation of the law in this land. You can imagine that I don't think the law has very much credibility either.

And I have lots of evidence for my position and the fundamental error in law itself standing on my side of things.

Everyone tells me that my knowledge is sophomoric or nonsense or some other dismissive thing.

I always invite them to debate me on whatever it is they think I'm wrong on.  

I politely extend that invitation to you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  flameaway @10    4 weeks ago

I suppose this was intended for me although that is not 100% clear the way you have offer it.

Maybe I'm confused by the definition of agreement.

Yes you are.   At least in context with my comments

So, I don't regard the Constitution as that credible a document. I guess you do.

Damn right i do and there is nothing really to debate here in that regard.   It's doubtful any of your spin or rationalization will change that.

So, if I don't think much of the Constitution and it is the foundation of the law in this land. You can imagine that I don't think the law has very much credibility either.

Sure can and after my comments, you can understand how we are polar opposites in that regard.

And I have lots of evidence for my position and the fundamental error in law itself standing on my side of things.

As do i but debating it with you will clearly fall on deaf ears in your case so there would be no point to it now would there?   You obviously have your mind made up and i have no interest in even trying to change it.   That would be a fools errand from what i've seen of you here so far and mamma sparty raised no fools.

Everyone tells me that my knowledge is sophomoric or nonsense or some other dismissive thing.

Then maybe you should start listening

I always invite them to debate me on whatever it is they think I'm wrong on.

I would not call what you want a "debate."   But rather another word that starts with a "T"  and ends on a roll

I politely extend that invitation to you.

Thanks but here is where your game ends with me.

All the best in your future endeavors here.

 
 
 
flameaway
11  flameaway    3 weeks ago

You don't want to debate me.  That's fine with me.  Nothing says you have to.

Good luck to you as well.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
Ender
igknorantzrulz
CB
dave-2693993


42 visitors